Content uploaded by Stephen Joseph
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stephen Joseph on Jul 19, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
1
(IN PRESS. JOURNAL OF HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY)
Authenticity is correlated with mindfulness and emotional intelligence
Ornella Tohme and Stephen Joseph
University of Nottingham
Correspondence should be addressed to Stephen Joseph, PhD, Professor, School of Education,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom NG8 1BB.
E-mail: Stephen.joseph@nottingham.ac.uk
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
2
Authenticity is correlated with mindfulness and emotional intelligence
Abstract
Humanistic psychology has long been interested in authenticity. Carl Rogers proposed that
authenticity leads to more fully functioning behaviour. However, it is only in recent years that
there has been empirical research into the correlates of authenticity. The aim was to test for
association between authenticity and two individual difference factors of much contemporary
interest - mindfulness and emotional intelligence. 197 participants were recruited either through
convenience sampling or an online survey. All completed the Authenticity Scale (Wood et al.,
2008), the Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale (Schutte et al., 1998), the Kentucky Inventory of
Mindfulness Skills (Baer, Smith & Allen, 2004) and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable
Responding (Paulhus, 1984). Higher scores on authenticity were associated with higher scores on
self-deceptive enhancement, mindfulness and emotional intelligence. Regression analyses
showed that authenticity, specifically the self-alienation subscale, was able to predict
mindfulness, and the authentic living subscale was able to predict emotional intelligence, taking
into account social desirability and self-deceptive effects. Further research is now needed into the
association between authenticity and self-deception and the causal relationships of these
variables with emotional intelligence, mindfulness, and other characteristics of the fully
functioning person.
Keywords: Authenticity, Mindfulness, Emotional Intelligence, Social Desirability, Positive
Psychology
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
3
Authenticity is correlated with mindfulness and emotional intelligence
Authenticity is a topic of long standing theoretical interest to humanistic psychologists
(Schmid, 2005; Wyatt, 2001) but until the more recent emergence of the positive psychology
movement there had been a lack of empirical research (Joseph, 2016). The aim of the present
study is to investigate the association between authenticity and two important concepts in
contemporary psychology, emotional intelligence and mindfulness. The work of Carl Rogers
provides the theoretical underpinnings of our research. In Rogers’ (1959) theory of personality,
authenticity is a natural state that people are intrinsically motivated towards. But it does not
happen automatically. The person must experience a nurturing social environment as
characterised by empathic understanding, unconditional positive-regard, and congruence in
others. Rogers’ work led to much subsequent research in the psychotherapy literature concerned
with the congruence of therapists as one of the conditions for a therapeutic environment (see,
Kolden, Klein, Wang, & Austin, 2011; Murphy & Joseph, 2016). Congruence as an individual
difference variable outside therapy settings, however, received little attention in the personality,
developmental and social psychology literature. This may have been because of the lack of
appropriate measurement tools. But in the mid 2000’s, Kernis and Goldman (2006) devised the
Authenticity Inventory, which measures four components: awareness, unbiased processing,
behaviour, and relational orientation; and Wood et al., (2008) devised the Authenticity Scale.
Both measures were influenced by Rogers’ work, but the Authenticity Scale was
developed specifically to be a measure of what Rogers’ (1959) referred to as congruence.
Congruence was the term used by Rogers (1959) in his major theoretical work to refer to
consistency between a person’s inner experience and their outward expression (see also Lietaer,
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
4
1993). As Barrett-Lennard (1998), one of the foremost proponents of Rogers’ theoretical system
wrote:
‘…it implies consistency between the three levels of (a) a person’s primary experience,
(b) their symbolized awareness, and (c) their outward behaviour and communication. The
concept is theoretically centred on consistency between the first two of these levels, this
being considered the main determining condition for congruence between awareness and
communication’ (p. 82).
Based on Barrett-Lennard’s definition, items were developed by the authors of the
Authenticity Scale in an attempt to reflect this distinction between consistency between the first
of the two levels and between the second of the two levels. Factor analysis showed that the
Authenticity Scale consisted of three factors which were labelled as (low) self-alienation, (not)
accepting external influence, and authentic living. Self-alienation refers to a lack of self-
understanding and a low score on this implies a degree of inner congruence. Accepting external
influence refers to how much people struggle to find their own self-direction, with low scores
implying a degree of self-determination, and authentic living refers to the outer expression of
congruence. As such, the Authenticity Scale breaks down the broad concept of congruence into
its constituent parts. More recently, Joseph (2016) in describing the Authenticity Scale has
referred to these three factors as ‘knowing oneself’, ‘owning oneself’, and ‘being oneself’, to
describe their continuity from inner experience to outer expression.
With the advent of these measures there has been new interest in the empirical study of
authenticity as an individual difference variable (Joseph, 2016; Ryan & Ryan, 2019). Although
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
5
the Authenticity Scale is widely used, its underpinnings in Rogers’ theory of congruence have
been of less interest to researchers. For Rogers (1959), however, congruence was the central
variable for the good life. As people become more congruent, they move toward becoming what
Rogers (1963) described as more fully functioning, which involves being more open to
experience, trusting of themselves, and living in an existential fashion.
The concept of fully functioning is central to understanding how Rogers’ approach is
consistent with the aims of contemporary positive psychology (Joseph, 2015). It is a term
however not widely used by today’s empirical researchers, who are more likely to use the term
well-being. Nonetheless, some evidence consistent with Rogers’ prediction that authenticity
leads to well-being comes from Boyraz, Waits and Felix (2014), who collected information from
college students on their authenticity, life satisfaction and levels of distress at two points in time
separated by almost two months. They found that those who showed greater authenticity as
measured at the first time point were more satisfied with life and less distressed at the second
time point. In thinking about the concept of fully functioning in relation to other psychological
constructs of contemporary interest we were particularly interested in mindfulness and emotional
intelligence.
Mindfulness is defined as a process a process of increasing specific quality of awareness
to experiences without judgement (Baer et al., 2006; Bishop, 2004; Hill & Updegraff, 2012).
Emotional intelligence is defined as the ability to process emotional information accurately and
efficiently and to regulate emotion in oneself (Mayer & Salovey, 1995). While mindfulness and
emotional intelligence are terms that have become widely used within the psychological
literature since Rogers was writing, they seem to describe the cognitive, emotional, and
behavioural states that Rogers was writing about decades earlier to describe the emergent
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
6
properties of congruence. As Rogers wrote: ‘Being real involves the difficult task of being
acquainted with the flow of experiencing going on within oneself, a flow marked especially by
complexity and continuous change’ (Rogers, 1962, pp. 91-92). Joseph, Murphy, and Patterson
(2016) have shown how Rogers’ conception of congruence and his description of the process of
becoming fully functioning, and a more mature life, is a movement towards living in what
sounds like a more mindful fashion. Rogers (1961) wrote:
‘A second characteristic of the process which for me is the good life, is that it involves an
increasing tendency to live fully in each moment. Such living in the moment means an
absence of rigidity, of tight organization of the imposition of structure on experience. It
means instead a maximum of adaptability, a discovery of structure in experience, a
flowing, changing organization of self and personality ... It involves discovering the
structure of experience in the process of living the experience. To open one's spirit to
what is going on now, and to discover in that present process whatever structure it
appears to have - this to me is one of the qualities of the good life, the mature life, as I see
clients approach it. (1961, pp. 188-189).
As such we hypothesize that greater congruence is associated with greater mindfulness.
In support of this, Beitel et al (2014) found that self-actualization, a closely related concept to
congruence, was associated with mindfulness, and Lakey et al (2008) found an association
between scores on the Kernis and Goldman (2006) Authenticity Inventory and the Mindful
Attention Awareness Scale (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Recently, Chen and Murphy (2019)
replicated this finding with the Mindful Awareness Scale but this time using the Authenticity
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
7
Scale (Wood et al., 2008). Our choice was to follow this latter line of investigation to use the
Authenticity Scale because its theoretical conceptualisation was based specifically on Rogers’
(1959) description of congruence. However, the Mindful Awareness Scale is unifactorial and
other newer measures of mindfulness provide multifactorial structures. As such we wished to
extend this research to a more fine grained analysis of other dimensions of mindfulness.
No research has yet been carried out testing the association between the Authenticity
Scale and emotional intelligence. However, Rogers’ (1959) writings on congruence imply that in
becoming more congruent, the qualities now described as emotional intelligence would also
arise. As Rogers (1963) writes of the fully functioning person:
‘He is able to experience all of his feelings, and is afraid of none of his feelings; he is his
own sifter of evidence, but is open to evidence from all sources; he is completely engaged
in the process of being and becoming himself, and thus discovers that he is soundly and
realistically social…’ (p. 22).
The aim of our study will be to test for the association between authenticity and the
qualities of mindfulness and emotional intelligence. One of the criticisms that can be made of
this line of investigation, however, is that associations between authenticity and other positively
valued dimensions are simply a function of social desirability. Those with a tendency to present
themselves in more socially desirable ways are likely to complete questionnaires to show
themselves in a more positive light. An observed correlation between, for example, authenticity
and emotional intelligence is simply due to the common correlation between each of the
variables and the third variable of social desirability rather than any underlying causal
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
8
relationship between authenticity and emotional intelligence. Neither the studies by Lakey et al
(2008) or Chen and Murphy (2019), included a measure of social desirability. More prone to
social desirability effects, however, may be the test for emotional intelligence. It is known that
emotional intelligence is “susceptible” to faking and so social desirability is a factor that can
have an impact on the trait measure of emotional intelligence (Kluemper, 2008). While it is
controversial whether social desirability measures are of much use as suppressor variables in
correcting scores from other scales (McCrae & Costa, 1983), how social desirability is related to
authenticity and influences its association with other variables is in our view an interesting and
important line of enquiry. Authenticity research is in its infancy and as yet we do not know how
it relates to other well established measures of social desirability, particularly that of self-
deception. The role of self-deception in positive psychology variables remains a strong focus of
interest (Sheridan, Boman, Mergler, & Furlong, 2015). As such, the aim of our study will be to
test for the association between authenticity and the qualities of mindfulness and emotional
intelligence while also controlling for social desirability effects.
METHOD
Participants
Using a convenience sample and an online survey, 197 participants (47% male and 54%
female; age ranged from 18 to 73 with a mean age of 34.87 years, SD = 12.29; 57% were white,
23% were Arabs, 14% were Asian and 6% were either Latino or African) completed self-report
measures of authenticity, emotional intelligence, and mindfulness.
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
9
Procedure
The study was conducted as part of the first author’s MA dissertation. The researcher
contacted students randomly at the University of Nottingham through the cafeteria, classes,
coffee shops and the library asking them for their participation. All those that expressed interest
were given information explaining what was involved and if they then agreed were asked to
complete an informed consent sheet. Participants were then given a hard copy of the
questionnaires to complete which was then collected in by the researcher on the same day. In
addition, the Bristol online survey (BOS) was used to develop an online version of the
questionnaires that was promoted by the researcher on social media. Online participants were
required to read and accept the informed consent before they can get access to the booklet of
questionnaires. All participants were required to be above eighteen years old and to be able to be
fluent in English. All completed four self-report measures:
Authenticity Scale (AS).
The Authenticity Scale (Wood et al., 2008) consists of 12 items which are scored to
produce three 4-item subscales: authentic living (AL), (e.g., ‘I think it is better to be yourself,
than to be popular’); self-alienation (SA), (e.g., ‘I don’t know how I really feel inside’); and
acceptance of external influence (AIE), (e.g., ‘I am strongly influenced by the opinions of
others’). Each items is rated on a 7-point Likert scale of 1 (Does not describe me at all) to 7
(Describes me very well). Higher scores on SA and AEI indicate lower levels of authenticity,
and higher scores on AL indicates greater authenticity. A total score can also be calculated by
reverse scoring the 8 items for self-alienation and accepting external influence and then summing
all 12 items such that scores can range from 12 to 84, with higher scores on the total AS
indicating greater authenticity.
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
10
Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale (SEIS).
The Schutte Emotional Intelligence scale (SEIS: Schutte et al., 1998) consists of 33 items
(e.g., ‘I have control over my own emotions’; ‘When I am faced with a challenge, I give up
because I believe I will fail’). Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The overall emotional intelligence score is calculated by reverse
scoring three items and then summing all 33 items such that scores can range from 33 to 165,
with higher scores on the SEIS indicating greater emotional intelligence.
Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS).
The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS: Baer, Smith & Allen, 2004)
consists of 39-items which are scored to produce four subscales of observing (12 items, e.g., ‘I
notice changes in my body, such as whether my breathing slows down or speeds up’);
describing (8 items, e.g., ‘I’m good at finding the words to describe my feelings’); acting with
awareness (10 items, e.g., ‘When I do things, I get totally wrapped up in them and don’t think
about anything else’); and accepting without judgement (9 items, e.g., ‘I make judgements about
whether my thoughts are good or bad’). Each item is rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (never,
rarely) to 5 (Very often or always true). A total score can also be calculated by reverse scoring
17 items and then summing all 39 items such that scores can range from 39 to 195 with higher
score on the total KIMS indicating greater mindfulness.
Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR).
The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR: Paulhus, 1984) consists of 40
items which are scored to produce two 20-item subscale scores of self-deceptive enhancement
(SDE) (e.g., ‘It’s all right with me if some people happen to dislike me’); and Impression
Management (IM) (e.g., ‘I have said something bad about a friend behind his/her back’). Paulhus
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
11
(1994) authorized two scoring methods, either continuous scoring in which all responses are
counted, or dichotomous scoring in which only extreme responses are counted. As research has
shown that continuous scoring produces higher convergent correlations (Stöber, Dette, & Musch,
2002) we chose to score the BIDR continuously. Each item is rated on a 7-point Likert scale
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), such that scores can range from 20 to 140 with
higher score on IM and SDE indicating greater desirable responses.
RESULTS
Mean score, Standard Deviation, and Cronbach’s alpha for each of the AS, SEIS, KIMS, and
BIDR are shown in Table 1. All scales and their subscales showed acceptable to excellent levels
of internal consistency reliability. Only SDE fell below 0.70 and that was only marginally so.
Correlations were computed between scores on each of the scales. A strong association was
found between scores on the AS and the SDE but not for IM. A similar pattern of associations
was found for the AS subscales, except for a weak but statistically significant association
between AL and IM. It was noted that scores on KIMS were moderately associated with scores
on the SEIS, and that each was moderately associated with higher scores on the AS, as predicted.
Inspection of the correlations using the subscales of the AS showed a similar pattern of
associations as the total AS. However, as it was also noted that the strength of correlation
between the SA, AEI, and AL subscales were only moderate, it seemed appropriate to use these
rather than the total score in the subsequent analysis.
-Insert Table 1 about here-
Although not using the terms ‘mindfulness’ and ‘emotional intelligence’, we argue that in
Rogers’ (1959) theory that the characteristics described by these terms can be understood to be
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
12
the emergent properties of congruence. As such we were interested in whether scores on the AS
were able to predict scores on KIMS and SEIS, respectively. We conducted two regression
analyses.
In the first analysis, the KIMS was the dependent variable with age and gender entered in
model 1, IM and SDE in model 2, SEIS in model 3, and finally scores on the exploratory
variables SA, AEI, and AL in model 4 (see Table 2). This allows us to understand if authenticity
is able to predict scores on mindfulness over and above the contribution of emotional intelligence
taking into account social desirability and gender and age effects. It was found that KIMS was
predicted by age in the first model, with older participants being more mindful, that the amount
of variance predicted increased in the second model with the addition of SDE, again in the third
model with the addition of the SEIS, but in the fourth model KIMS was now most strongly
predicted by SA followed by AEI, SEIS, and age. SDE was no longer a statistically significant
predictor.
In the second analysis, the SEIS was the dependent variable with age and gender entered
in model 1, IM and SDE in model 2, KIMS in model 3, and finally scores on the exploratory
variables SA, AEI, and AL in model 4 (see Table 3). This allows us to understand if authenticity
is able to predict scores on emotional intelligence over and above the contribution of mindfulness
taking into account social desirability and gender and age effects. It was found that SEIS was not
predicted by either gender or age in the first model, but that the amount of variance predicted
increased in the second model with the addition of SDE and now gender, with females being
more emotionally intelligent, again in the third model with the addition of the KIMS, and in the
fourth model, when AL emerged as a predictor followed by KIMS and gender, but following
SDE which was the strongest predictor.
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
13
-Insert Table 3 about here-
Summarizing these two analyses, scores on the AS subscales are able to predict
mindfulness and emotional intelligence controlling for age and gender and taking into account
social desirability effects. However, authenticity subscales seemed to be differentially related to
the KIMS and SEIS. AL was the only one of the three authenticity subscales to predict scores on
the SEIS but it did not predict scores on the KIMS, which was predicted by the other two
subscales of SA and AEI. In the final models gender was predictive of SEIS and age of KIMS,
suggesting that there are cultural and developmental aspects that are not fully accounted for by
the AS.
DISCUSSION
We found that authenticity was associated with emotional intelligence and mindfulness.
Authenticity predicted mindfulness taking into account emotional intelligence, and vice versa.
Emotional Intelligence seems more aligned with the external dimension of authenticity as
measured by the AL subscale. Mindfulness seems more aligned with the internal dimension of
authenticity as measured by the SA subscale. One of the novel features of our study was that we
were able to show that the associations between mindfulness, emotional intelligence, and
authenticity remained even when controlling for social desirability effects. Our research
continues a trend towards examining convergence between humanistic and positive psychology
(Joseph & Murphy, 2012), provides new evidence for the psychological benefits of authenticity,
and opens up new directions for exploration. However, there are methodological limitations that
need to be considered, notably the use of a small convenience sample of self-selected
participants, the use of a cross-sectional design, and exclusive use of self-report measures.
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
14
First, the use of a cross-sectional design limits what we can conclude about the
relationship between the variables. While we think that mindfulness and emotional intelligence
are emergent properties of congruence, as these skills emerge, they will in turn provide the
opportunity for the person to deepen their level of congruence. Carlson (2013) has discussed how
mindfulness serves as a path to self-knowledge. But our cross-sectional data cannot address these
questions of causality. This is a limitation of the study. Having established the associations
between authenticity, mindfulness and emotional intelligence there is now a need for prospective
research using multiple testing points to test for the causal nature of these relationships. That way
it will be possible to show that mindfulness and emotional intelligence are emergent properties of
congruence, and as people become more mindful and emotionally intelligent they move toward
even greater congruence.
A second limitation is our exclusive reliance on self-report measures. Self-report
measures are problematic for a number of reasons, but in this case we are dealing with concepts
that seem particularly difficult to operationalize. One of the strongest associations we found was
between authenticity and self-deceptive enhancement. In the psychometric development of the
Authenticity Scale, Wood et al (2008) found that authenticity was not strongly associated with
social desirability so this was unexpected. The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding
provides scores for two forms of social desirability, impression management and self-deceptive
enhancement. It is interesting that we found an association with the latter but not the former, with
the exception of the Authentic Living subscale. It may be that our results reflect the fact that
more authentic people do actually possess more of the qualities captured by the self-deceptive
enhancement subscale such as being genuine in their acceptance that other people might not like
them.
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
15
Other studies have also pointed to the possibility that the high correlation found between
other measures of well-being and social desirability is due to content similarity than to a social
desirability response bias (Kozma & Stones, 1987, 1988) and that self-reports of well-being can
generally be taken as veridical assessments (McCrae, 1986). This possibility deserves more
attention. After all, features such as being genuine in one’s acceptance that other people might
not like you is a defining characteristic of authenticity. It has long been thought by some
researchers that social desirability scales are better interpreted as measures of substantive traits
than as indicators of response bias (McCrae & Costa, 1983), leading us to wonder to what extent
social desirability measures are in fact assessing components of authenticity. It was interesting
that in the final models of the regression analyses when authenticity was entered that self-
deception was no longer a statistically significant predictor of mindfulness but it emerged as the
stronger predictor of emotional intelligence. The association between authenticity and self-
deceptive enhancement and their relationship to other variables now deserves much closer
scrutiny.
On the other hand, it may be that the measure of authenticity is flawed. While other
research has shown that self-serving biases in self-perception that are often inferred from the
correlations between well-being and social desirability measures may be best understood as a
quality of positive health (e.g., Blaine & Crocker, 1993; Taylor & Brown, 1994) this cannot be
inferred here. It may be the case that well-being as it is often understood may consist of some
element of bias in self-perception, or self-deception and self-enhancement strategies may be used
in some way to bolster well-being (Erez, Johnson, & Judge, 1995; Robins & Paulhus, 2001), but
there is a distinction to be made between genuine mental health and illusory mental health
(Shedler, Mayman, & Manis, 1993). Specifically, Rogers’ (1959) conception of congruence is
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
16
that the more congruent one is, by definition the less self-serving bias or self-enhancement there
should be. Congruence implies being realistic and honest in one’s perceptions. The notion that a
small amount of self-deception is possibly healthy does not apply to the concept of congruence.
As such, evidence of self-serving bias associated with authenticity points to difficulties in the
psychometric assessment of authenticity. It may simply be that those high on self-deception think
of themselves as more authentic than they actually are. In that way, higher scores on authenticity
may in fact reflect a degree of inner incongruence. In the current study we used the Authenticity
Scale (Wood et al., 2008) and it may be that our results are specific to this measure. Future
research may be advised to use more than one measure of authenticity in order to test for the
similarities and differences. Also, it is well established that people’s capacity to evaluate
themselves is modest (Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004). As Ryan and Ryan (2019) note there is a
need for novel methods in the assessment of authenticity that go beyond the experiential self-
report realm.
Third, we used a small and self-selected group of participants. A larger representative
sample would be desirable in future research, but that leads us to question who it ought to be
representative of and the importance of examining the theory through a more culturally informed
lens. For example, it is possible that there is a difference in authenticity between the Eastern and
Western cultures. Conducting research such as that here across different cultures would help to
confirm or refute this. Rogers’ (1959) theory is intended as universal statement of the human
condition, and in this respect we would not expect there to be differences in the general
processes. As a Western theory, Rogers’ approach may be seen by some to present a worldview
that is different to Eastern world views such as Buddhism. In Buddhism, mindfulness is one of
eight steps toward getting to “non-self” rather than enhancing the self. Following this path
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
17
reduces craving and dread (self-focused strivings) and thereby reduces suffering. Mindfulness
implies awareness of the present moment without judgement (and without claiming me or mine).
This brings an understanding that life is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and utterly empty (without
self). Some critics might view this as different to Rogers’ view of congruence and what they see
as Rogers’ view of the real self. But we would not agree. The self-structure, as discussed by
Rogers (1959), develops as a result of incongruence. There is no self in Rogers’ theory that exists
beyond the conditions of worth from which it has developed. As in Buddhism, moving towards
greater congruence is actually a process in which the person strips away their conditions of worth
and thus the layers of their self-structure, which if it were possible to do completely would reveal
only the need for maintenance and development of the organism. In this way, we would argue
that Rogers’ (1959) theory is actually closely aligned to Buddhism’s view of non-self, and both
present a similar rather than different worldview. Other writers such as Chang and Page (1991)
and Bundschuh-Muller (2013) have previously expressed similar views about the convergence of
Rogers’ theory with Eastern worldviews but this is an area that deserves much greater
exploration and attention by researchers.
Finally, the characteristics of a person that might be expected to be emergent from
authenticity is wide ranging and while we think we have tested for two of the most important
ones attracting interest in contemporary research, there remains much research yet to be carried
out to test the boundaries of the nomological net thrown up by Rogers’ (1959) theory, and the
ways in which he describes personality development when congruence - the tendency toward
actualization is unhindered (e.g., Cartwright, DeBruin, & Berg, 1991; Cartwright, & Mori,
1988). Our research has focused on individualistic aspects of Rogers’ theory but his view was
that congruence leads to movement toward both autonomous and socially constructive behaviors.
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
18
There is now a need for research into the social dimensions of congruence. Authenticity is one of
the fundamental concepts in the humanistic psychotherapies (Cooper & Joseph, 2016).
Developing evidence that authenticity is associated with other variables in the ways that are to be
expected from theory is important for the future development of humanistic psychotherapies. We
also hope our research will help to continue the trend for greater convergence between
humanistic and positive psychology as these older theoretical ideas begin to be put to new test.
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
19
REFERENCES
Barrett-Lennard, G. (1998). Carl Rogers’ helping system: Journey and substance (1st ed.).
London: Sage.
Baer, R., Smith, G. and Allen, K. (2004). Assessment of Mindfulness by Self-
Report. Assessment, 11(3), 191-206.
Baer, R., Smith, G., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using Self-Report
Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27-45.
Beitel, M., Bogus, S., Hutz, A., Green, D., Cecero, J., & Barry, D. (2014). Stillness and motion:
An empirical investigation of mindfulness and self-actualization. Person-Centered &
Experiential Psychotherapies, 13(3), 187-202.
Bishop, S. (2004). Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 11(3), pp.230-241.
Blaine, B., & Crocker, J. (1993). Self-esteem and self-serving biases in reactions to positive and
negative events: An integrative review. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-Esteem: The
puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 55-85). Boston, MA: Springer.
Boyraz, G., Waits. J.B. and Felix, V.A. (2014). Authenticity, life satisfaction and distress: A
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 498–505.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848.
Carlson, E. N. (2013). Overcoming the barriers to self-knowledge: Mindfulness as a path to
seeing yourself as you really are. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(2), 173-186.
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
20
Cartwright, D., DeBruin, J., & Berg, S. (1991). Some scales for assessing personality based on
Carl Rogers' theory: Further evidence of validity. Personality and Individual Differences,
12, 151-156.
Cartwright, D., & Mori, C. (1988). Scales for assessing aspects of the person. Person Centered
Review, 3, 176-194.
Chang, R., & Page, R. C. (1991). Characteristics of the self‐actualized person: Visions from the
East and West. Counseling and Values, 36(1), 2-10.
Chen., S., & Murphy, D. (2019). The mediating role of authenticity on mindfulness and
wellbeing: a cross cultural analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Counselling and
Psychotherapy, 10:1, 40-55, DOI: 10.1080/21507686.2018.1556171
Cooper, M., Joseph, S. (2016). Psychological foundations for humanistic psychotherapeutic
practice. In D.J. Cain, K. Keenan and S. Rubin (eds), Humanistic Psychotherapies:
Handbook of Research and Practice (pp 11 – 46). APA: Washington, DC.
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health,
education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 69-106.
Erez, A., Johnson, D. E., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Self-deception as a mediator of the relationship
between dispositions and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences,
19, 597-612.
Hill, C. and Updegraff, J. (2012). Mindfulness and its relationship to emotional
regulation. Emotion, 12(1), 81-90.
Joseph, S., & Murphy, D. (2012). Person-Centered Approach, Positive Psychology, and
Relational Helping. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 53(1), 26-51.
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
21
Joseph, S. (2015). Positive Therapy: Building bridges between positive psychology and person-
centred psychotherapy (2nd ed.). Routledge. London.
Joseph, S. (2016). Authentic: How to be yourself and why it matters. Platkus: London.
Joseph, S., Murphy, D., & Patterson, T. G. (2016). Mindfulness and person-centred therapy. In I.
Ivtzan & T. Lomas (Eds.), Mindfulness in positive psychology: The science of meditation
and wellbeing. (pp. 295–307). London: Routledge.
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity:
Theory and research. Advances in experimental social psychology, 38, 283-357.
Kluemper, D. (2008). Trait emotional intelligence: The impact of core-self evaluations and social
desirability. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(6), pp.1402-1412.
Kolden, G., Klein, M., Wang, C., & Austin, S. (2011). Congruence/genuineness. Psychotherapy,
48(1), 65-71.
Kozma, A. & Stones, M. J. (1987). Social desirability in measures of subjective well-being: A
systematic evaluation. Journal of Gerontology, 42, 56-59.
Kozma, A., & Stones, M. J. (1988). Social desirability in measures of subjective well-being:
Age comparisons. Social Indicators Research, 20(1), 1-14.
Lakey, C. E., Kernis, M. H., Heppner, W. L., & Lance, C. E. (2008). Individual differences in
authenticity and mindfulness as predictors of verbal defensiveness. Journal of Research
in Personality, 42(1), 230-238.
Lietaer, G. (1993). Authenticity, congruence, and transparency. In D. Brazier. (Ed). Beyond Carl
Rogers (pp. 17-46). London: Constable.
Mayer, J., & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of
feelings. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 4(3), 197-208.
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
22
McCrae, R. R. (1986). Well-being scales do not measure social desirability. Journal of
Gerontology, 41, 390-392.
Murphy, D., & Joseph, S. (2016). Person-centered therapy: Past, present, and future orientations.
In D.J. Cain, K. Keenan and S. Rubin (eds), Humanistic Psychotherapies: Handbook of
Research and Practice (pp 185 – 218). APA: Washington, DC.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598-609.
Paulhus, D. L. (1994). Balanced inventory of desirable responding: Reference manual for BIDR
version 6. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Robins, R. W. & Paulhus, D. L. (2001). The character of self-enhancers: Implications for
organizations. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the
workplace (pp. 193-222). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships, as
developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A
study of a science, vol. 3: Formulations of the person and the social context (pp.
184-256). New York: McGraw Hill.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person (1st ed.). London: Constable.
Rogers, C. R. (1962). The interpersonal relationship: The core of guidance. In C. R.
Rogers & B. Stevens (Eds.), Person to person. Lafayette, CA: Real People Press.
Rogers, C. R. (1963). The concept of the fully functioning person. Psychotherapy: Theory,
Research & Practice, 1(1), 17-26.
Ryan, W. S & Ryan, R. M. (2019). Toward a social psychology of
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
23
authenticity: Exploring within-person variation in autonomy, congruence, and
genuineness using self-determination theory. Review of General Psychology, 23(1), 99-
112.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., et al.
(1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality
and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.
Shedler, J., Mayman, M., and Manis, M. (1993). The illusion of mental health. American
Psychologist, 48, 1117-1131.
Sheridan, Z., Boman, P., Mergler, A., & Furlong, M. J., (2015). Examining well-being, anxiety,
and self-deception in university students. Cogent Psychology, 2, Article 993850.
Stöber, J., Dette, D. E., & Musch, J. (2002). Comparing continuous and dichotomous scoring of
the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Journal of Personality Assessment,
78(2), 370-389.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1994). Positive illusions and well-being revisited: Separating fact
from fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 21-27.
Wood, A., Linley, P., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality:
A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the Authenticity
Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 385-399.
Wyatt, G. (2001), (Ed.). Congruence. Rogers’ therapeutic conditions: Evolution, theory and
practice. Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.
Schmid, P. F. (2005). Authenticity and alienation: Towards an understanding of the person
beyond the categories of order and disorder. In S. Joseph and R. Worsley (Eds.). Person-
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
24
centred psychopathology: A positive psychology of mental health (pp. 75 – 90). PCCS
books: Ross-on-Wye.
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
25
Table 1.
Pearson correlations between Authenticity Scale, Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale, Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills, and the Balanced
Inventory of Desirable Responding (minimum N = 186)
Mean
SD
Alpha
AS
AL
AEI
SA
SEIS
KIMS
Ob
De
AWA
AWJ
SDE
AS
63.79
10.93
.85
AL
22.57
3.82
.74
.73***
AEI
12.13
4.89
.84
-.78***
-.39***
SA
10.69
5.28
.81
-.82***
-.44***
.44***
SEIS
124.76
13.48
.83
.53***
.49***
-.30***
-.46***
KIMS
126.60
16.59
.87
.61***
.38***
-.47***
-.59***
.44***
Ob
40.88
7.43
.84
.30***
.25***
-.21**
-.26***
.41***
.65***
De
27.91
5.46
.86
.52***
.34***
-.37***
-.52***
.46***
.70***
.35***
AWA
29.97
5.64
.79
.30***
.20**
-.26***
-.24***
.07
.58***
.08
.20**
AWJ
27.73
6.76
.87
.46***
.20**
-.38***
-.50***
.19**
.68***
.11
.32***
.32***
SDE
85.72
12.86
.69
.55***
.42***
-.49***
-.41***
.53***
.43***
.17*
.36***
.36***
.25***
IM
82.62
17.47
.78
.11
.17*
-.08
-.04
.15*
.16*
.02
.01
.38***
.04
.31***
Note. AS = Authenticity Scale (total); AL = Authentic Living: AEI = Accepting External Influence; SA = Self-Alienation; SEIS = Schutte Emotional
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
26
Intelligence Scale: KIMS = Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (total); Ob = Observing; De = Describing; AWA =Acting with Awareness;
AWJ = Acting without Judgement; SDE = Self-Deceptive Enhancement; IM = Impression Management.
* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.01.
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
27
Table 2. Regression of Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills onto gender and age (Model 1) Self-Deceptive Enhancement and Impression
Management (Model 2), Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale (Model 3), and Authenticity Subscales (Model 4).
Unstandardized
coeeficients
Standardized
coefficients
Model
b
SE b
t
F
R
R Square
Adjusted R
Square
R2
Change
1
(Constant)
111.93
4.50
24.90****
6.79***
.27
.07
.06
Gender
2.58
2.50
.08
1.03
Age
0.31
0.10
.23
3.02**
2
(Constant)
60.31
8.70
6.93***
16.29***
.52
.27
.25
.20***
Gender
4.50
2.29
.14
1.96
Age
0.30
0.09
.22
3.28***
IM
0.01
0.07
-.01
-0.10
SDE
0.58
0.09
.45
6.56***
3
(Constant)
33.73
10.50
3.21**
17.69****
.58
.33
.31
.07***
Gender
2.09
2.27
.06
0.92
Age
0.33
0.09
.25
3.82***
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
28
IM
0.02
0.06
.02
0.31
SDE
0.35
0.10
.27
3.42***
SEIS
0.38
0.09
.31
4.16***
4
(Constant)
92.84
12.98
7.15***
20.70***
.70
.49
.46
.15***
Gender
1.16
2.04
.04
0.57
Age
0.25
0.08
.19
3.20**
IM
0.08
0.06
.09
1.48
SDE
0.10
0.10
.08
0.99
SEIS
0.22
0.09
.18
2.54*
SA
-1.18
0.21
-.38
-5.59***
AEI
-0.57
0.22
-.17
-2.55*
AL
0.00
0.31
.00
0.00
Note. KIMS = Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (total); IM = Impression Management; SDE = Self-Deceptive Enhancement; SEIS =
Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale; AL = Authentic Living: AEI = Accepting External Influence; SA = Self-Alienation.
* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.01.
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
29
Table 3. Regression of Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale onto gender and age (Model 1), Self-Deceptive Enhancement and Impression
Management (Model 2), Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (Model 3), and Authenticity Scale (Model 4).
Unstandardized
coeeficients
Standardized
coefficients
Model
b
SE b
t
F
R
R Square
Adjusted
R Square
R2
Change
1
(Constant)
121.42
3.82
31.82****
1.91
.14
.02
.01
Gender
4.04
2.12
.15
1.90
Age
-0.09
0.09
-.08
-1.04
2
(Constant)
70.65
6.90
10.24***
21.68***
.57
.33
.31
.31***
Gender
6.42
1.82
.24
3.53***
Age
-0.10
0.07
-.09
-1.32
IM
-0.07
0.05
-.09
-1.33
SDE
0.62
0.07
.58
8.84***
3
(Constant)
56.39
7.44
7.58***
22.39***
.62
.39
.37
.06***
Gender
5.36
1.76
.20
3.05**
Age
-0.17
0.07
-.15
-2.33*
AUTHENTICITY, MINDFULNESS, AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
30
IM
-0.07
0.05
-.09
-1.35
SDE
0.48
0.08
.45
6.45***
KIMS
0.24
006
.29
4.16***
4
(Constant)
51.24
12.02
4.26***
17.99***
.67
.45
.43
.07***
Gender
3.89
1.72
.14
2.26*
Age
-0.12
0.07
-.11
-1.72
IM
-0.07
0.05
-.09
-1.48
SDE
0.40
0.08
.38
5.07***
KIMS
0.16
0.06
.20
2.54*
SA
-0.30
0.20
-.12
-1.52
AEI
0.32
0.19
.12
1.66
AL
0.96
0.26
.26
3.71***
Note. SEIS = Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale; IM = Impression Management; SDE = Self-Deceptive Enhancement; KIMS = Kentucky
Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (total); AL = Authentic Living: AEI = Accepting External Influence; SA = Self-Alienation.
* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.01.
